The High Court has overturned a reduction and two periods of disqualification imposed on John Fitzgerald’s jobseeker’s allowance after finding that the statutory notification requirements had not been followed.
Fitzgerald, who represented himself, appealed a Social Welfare Appeals Office decision which had upheld a €44 weekly reduction and two separate nine-week suspensions of his allowance.
The dispute arose after the Department of Social Protection sent Fitzgerald an appointment letter in September 2023 stating that he had been selected for the Intreo Partner National Employment Service. The letter said the service would explain employment, training and work-experience opportunities and warned that failure to attend or participate could reduce his payment.
A Deciding Officer later treated Fitzgerald as having failed to submit to an assessment of his education, training or development needs and as having failed to participate in an appropriate programme. His payment was reduced by €44 per week from October 2023. Nine-week disqualifications followed in November 2023 and March 2024.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons held that the appointment letters did not contain the assessment requirement prescribed by section 141A of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. Their wording instead described meetings at which information would be provided to Fitzgerald.
That distinction was decisive. Section 141B sanctions can only follow after a valid assessment has taken place and, as a consequence of that assessment, a person has been asked to participate in an identified prescribed scheme, programme or course. Neither step occurred here.
The court also found that the two disqualifications were separately invalid because Fitzgerald was never served with the additional second-stage notice required before payment could be suspended entirely.
The Appeals Officer’s determination is therefore to be set aside and Fitzgerald is entitled to repayment of the sums withheld. The judge did not decide broader questions about the legal status of the National Employment Service or the validity of part of the regulations, as those issues were unnecessary to resolve the appeal.